Sun's CPO, Michelle Dennedy, has just published a good piece on privacy from the boardroom perspective.
It's no big news to point out that getting privacy right for an entire enterprise, its suppliers, partners and customers (or indeed citizens) means satisfying a broad range of divergent and sometimes conflicting requirements... but it's not often you see it stated this clearly and concisely, covering practical topics such as:
- The strategic vision: "what is 'The Network of You'?"
- The boardroom perspective: "what's the real cost/risk equation of information as an asset?"
- The compliance dimension: "what's the right balance between law, self-regulation and best practice?"
- The technology dimension: "what's available, and how does it fit with the non-technical factors?"
Recommended reading.
Posted by racingsnake
@ 02:36 PM GMT+00:00
One of last week's more enjoyable meetings was an opportunity to hear Ken Rijock give his presentation on how money-launderers think and work. He speaks from personal experience, and is a very engaging speaker. You might remember that a couple of years ago I 'syndicated' a set of articles by Ken giving quidance to compliance offficers. One of the topics Ken covered last week (for an audience mainly consisting of UK financial institutions) was the possibility that some European banks may find themselves the target of law suits by the Venezuelan opposition, should the opposition become the government. At issue are billions of dollars' worth of Venezuela's oil revenue, which the opposition say is being siphoned off by the president and some of his close associates. Here's Ken's brief article about it on the World-Check site, if you want to read more.
All this may seem a bit esoteric* if you aren't Venezuelan or a potentially 'exposed' European banker - but consider it in the light of one of Boris Johnson's first decisions as London Mayor: he has announced that he will not renew a deal, struck with Venezuela by former Mayor Ken Livingstone, whereby buses in London got cheap fuel, which in turn allowed fare concessions for those on low incomes. In return, the Livingstone administration provided the Venezuelans with advice and guidance on energy efficiency, waste management and traffic.
Boris hasn't yet clarified how (or indeed if) he will redress the balance for those who are about to lose this subsidy, though he has expressed the view that "there are better ways of benefiting Londoners and better ways of benefiting Venezuelans" and that his constituents are unconfortable with the idea of buses in "one of the world's financial powerhouses being funded by the people of a country where many people live in extreme poverty".
Boris is gradually being seen less as an out-and-out buffoon, and more as someone who makes use of many different levels of messaging. In this case, is he tipping the hat to Ken's 80s caricature - the 'loony left' GLC leader who spent Londoners' rates on subsidies for one-legged lesbian coffee collectives in the non-aligned nation of your choice? Or is this a rather more hard-headed step to reduce the capital's ties with a regime which looks like it could spray all manner of financial and legal shrapnel if and when it loses power? Bearing in mind that Boris' deputy is former private equity manager Tim Parker, I'd say the smart money is on "both"...
*Hey, just trying to live up to the name... ;^)
Posted by racingsnake
@ 11:29 AM GMT+00:00
![[RSS Newsfeed]](/themes/sotto/images/valid-rss.png)
![[This is a Roller site]](/themes/sotto/images/roller-logo.gif){kind=logo}